Well considering I've seen this kind of stuff before and the shear volume of people bashing her, I'd say that teachers would have had to notice it unless they were completely incompetitent.

You still have not shown where you get this 'shear volume' (the word is 'sheer', by the way) data from. And you have not shown where exactly these statements by other students took place. In other words, you make suppositions on incomplete information and decide these are facts. You are quite possibly the worst researcher ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

There is a slight difference, nice try. In my example the reporter was interviewing her. In your example, the reporter just made a supposition without any supporting evidence or testimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kass

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kass

All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.

In both instances, the author makes a statement that were not directly stated to the student, but merely part of the article as commentary on the situation. They are both assertions made by the author, thus they are both equally valid.

And that first quote still does not address the tone in which the teacher delivered her statement. It neither said it was threatening or pleasant, but from the wording, it is easier to assume the latter than it is the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

It's the example you tried unsuccessfully to throw back in my face.

The example above is used to illustrate the tone/threat issue. It has nothing to do with your inference that there were 'other examples that didn't make it into the article.' Please stop attacking the wrong arguments. It is dishonest and quite frankly makes you look like an idiot.

They aren't red herrings, though I'm not sure people realize what the implications of some of what I posted yet.

They are. Red herrings and straw man arguments. Rather than deal with the data presented, you choose instead to erect arguments you can easily knock down. This is clearly an intellectually dishonest tactic.

Having problems getting article to come up but it is concerning one of your sources.

It outlines the actions Nyborg's university took on him related to his participation in a different research project, which he was tasked to undertake and monitor.

First, it isn't clear that you understand what the problems the University had (Nyborg found it to be a matter of restricting academic freedom; the university took issue with technical flaws in a controversial research topic he monitored).

Second, you haven't demonstrated that the alleged issues the university took with his position on the Skanderborg project is related to the much later study I cited. Clearly they still had confidence in his academic ability since he was allowed to continue on as faculty. Clearly his later research has merit since it was vetted through the referee process of the prestigious journal Intelligence.

Therefore, for anything you say to have any merit; for any of your criticism to be worth reading, you'll need to evaluate the data of the 2008 research on its own merit. In order to compare and contrast with Nyborg's previous research, you'll need to demonstrate that the same flaws of methodology (assuming any existed to begin with) exist in the 2008 paper.

Otherwise, the comments you posted are intellectually dishonest ad hominem arguments. It appears that you're creating a straw man of the researcher's character since you're incapable of addressing the research.

Quote:

Well first two people I looked up have gotten into serious trouble concerning academic dishonesty.

There is, indeed, dishonesty occurring in this discussion. It isn't, however, related to any of the research I've cited. Demonstrate dishonesty regarding this research, and I'll revise my position. Your straw man and ad hominem arguments regarding Nyborg indicate a fear to deal with the research.

What of the detailed analysis of Stankov I presented? You would rather erect arguments you can easily knock down that look at empirical data?

Quote:

That is in the second source I presented concerning Academic dishonesty.

Sorry. This isn't related to any of the research or data I cited. Your spurious link is dismissed. Please stay on topic.

Quote:

The fact one of the researchers you mentioned was suspended from his job for academic dishonesty in his research isn't relevent? I wasn't born yesterday, that is at least one source that just lost credibility, and that was just the first one I investigated.

Its only relevant to someone afraid to deal with research on its own merit. If you can demonstrate that whatever issues caused Nyborg's suspension are related to his 2008 research and you can show the flaws in his methodology, then you're demonstrating relevance. Instead, you've posted many spurious links which are red herrings, leading others down a path you want them to go, as far from the data I've presented as possible.

Clearly, my analysis and the data I've presented have hit a mark. I'm sorry, but they are legitimate and valid data. Particularly Stankov, who's research is empirical and not partially syllogistic the way Nyborg's is.

Quote:

In reference to that particular source though, I'm showing there is a systematic problem, and showing incidents in multiple states and even countries outlines that there is a problem.

No. You haven't. You've shown that your adept at creating straw man arguments as an ad hominem toward researchers you don't like vis a vis google. You haven't demonstrated any of this "research skilz" you so boldly asserted. You've demonstrated a knack for generating red herrings to keep other participants away from data you don't wish to deal with.

There has been some discussion on Garfield's part regarding the veracity of Nyborg's research, so I'm going to give it the same treatment I did Stankov. Fair use prevents me from simply posting the entire article, but the full paper is available in volume 37 of Intelligence, which is available at most university libraries or via public libraries either in their stacks or online access. Ask your local librarian.

Quote:

Abstract
The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

The “g nexus” that Dr. Nyborg refers to is the “general intelligence” factor, a construct used in psychology to quantify common trends across various methods of scoring intelligence. Basically, there is an assumption that there exists a factor in human cognition that drives intelligence which may be phenotypical and an indicator of brain efficiency. While the g factor hypothesis generated a fair bit of controversy in the early 1980s, most notably from Stephen J. Gould, it has since become widely accepted with the advent of much empirical research. Wikipedia barely touches on this topic for which entire texts have been written, but I provide that link as a starting point for anyone interested in further information.

What Nyborg attempts to do (and appears to succeed) is to bring religiosity into the g nexus. Like Garfield is always saying, Nyborg has an agenda. Unfortunately, perhaps for Garfield, the agenda isn't so sinister. Nyborg acknowledges the scientific curiosity of the “origin, development and persistence of religion worldwide” in his introduction to the research questions. He also notes the pervasive nature of religion across global boundaries as a human condition, anthropologically relevant to understanding human cognition in general given the presence of religion in both developing and developed nations and given the diverse range of superstitions and beliefs which exist.

Nyborg describes his research thus:

Quote:

The present study examines the working hypothesis that
dogmatism reflects a neurologically less than optimally evolved low g brain that seek supernatural guidance in ambiguous or life threatening situations. The study begins with two sets of a priori assumptions. First, high g people have a brain based biological capacity for solving complex problems, and for acting rationally when confronted with fundamental questions about existence, human nature, underlying causes, or the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. Second, low g people lack this protection and are therefore unfairly ordained to live in a prerational world based on poorly validated evidence and little accumulated insight. They accordingly often find themselves in cognitively, emotionally, or morally challenging situations and have to use plan B, that is, to call upon easily comprehensible religious authoritative guidance and to submit more or less uncritically to culturally given stereotyped rituals. Frustration with their life may also make them seek redemption or faith in an after life.

Nyborg also describes Six testable syllogisms about g which defined the empirical program:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyborg

Syllogism 1
Premises 1 and 2:
Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims. Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.

Syllogism 3
Premise 4: Denominations of different conceptual complexity also differ in IQ. Ergo: Denominations can be systematically rank ordered by average IQ.

Syllogism 4
Premis 5: Denominations that differ in distribution score will according to Gaussian distribution theory also differ in the proportions of high-IQ individuals (i.e. with IQ≥120)—the group from which society primarily recruits its members for the upper positions. Obviously, the absolute denominational contribution of high-IQ members also depends on its numerical size. Ergo: Large denominations may offer more gifted individuals to occupy the upper religious and social positions in society than do small denominations, even if they do have relatively low mean IQs and Sds.

Syllogism 5
Premise 6:
IQ is the most important single predictor of income. Ergo: Denominations with high IQ earn more than less favored denominations.

Syllogism 6
Premises 7 and 8:
The indicator for the heritability of IQ goes up with age as children have more chances to actively create their own environment rather than just reacting passively to parental directions. Moreover, individuals tend to gravitate over time towards a job with a task complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity level— the so-called Gravitation hypothesis. In the present context the Gravitation hypothesis gives basis for the expectation that individuals will gravitate over time towards a non-faith/faith position with a degree of complexity that matches their own cognitive complexity. Ergo: Agnostic and Atheist persuasions become increasingly more prevalent from ages 12 to 17, and the proportion of religious believers drops accordingly.

The data, as we can see in the lengthy and detailed methods section of his paper, aren't from Nyborg's own survey questions, questionnaires, or subjective hypotheses. They are arrived at using existing test scores used by the Department of Defense (the ASVAB test that many adolescents take every year in high school) and use to place potential service members in jobs and specialties to which they are cognitively suited.

The results are clear: “white religious people trail Atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Analysis of variance on the actual number of respondents indicates that this difference is statistically significant (p=.02).”

In the event that Garfield sees fit to erect a straw man or send us all on a red herring (he undoubtedly will if past behavior is an example) with the inclusion of “white” in the statement above, its important to note that Nyborg, like many social scientists who study social and anthropological research questions, was merely controlling for race. In the paper itself, you can see where he applied similar controls to other social constructs like wealth and status in order to isolate the correlation itself.

There appears to be no basis to Garfield's unfair and dishonest strawman, red herring and ad hominem attempts to dismiss Nyborg's research when his 2009 study is closely examined. It has nothing to do with his previous research nor has Garfield shown any indication that he understands what, specifically, Nyborg was accused of -an accusation that was so insignificant that the result was a reprimand. An accusation that is unrelated to this research.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

@ Rogue Nine

I'm more than literate enough to read and comprehend what something is saying. I could draw up other examples to illustrate the teacher's threats from one of Mercedes Lackey's books if you like, I believe Alta which is book two of the Dragon Jousters would work.

I'm more than literate enough to read and comprehend what something is saying.

And [...] biased enough to draw conclusions that are based on the flimsiest of premises based on what you've read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJ:

I could draw up other examples to illustrate the teacher's threats from one of Mercedes Lackey's books if you like, I believe Alta which is book two of the Dragon Jousters would work.

Don't bring in any other data or information unless it directly related to the article. Prove your point from the article. If you cannot, then sorry but I'm forced to believe that you are again drawing faulty and fallacious conclusions and that your argument is null and void.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere..

If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".

Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere..

If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".

Actually in this case I can, because the reason I'm saying the study is biased and untrustworthy, is the exact same reason that he got suspended for. Furthermore if it had been at the university I'm at that Professor wouldn't have been suspended, he would have been fired. For all we know he just didn't get caught that time.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.

You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either

A) Don't understand it
or
B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.

He got in trouble for deliberately using bad data to manipulating and misrepresenting data to skew the results, if he did that for one study, what's to say he didn't do it for another.

Not that it's relevant anyway, but what data was his in regards to? Please cite the research. If you can't, don't sweat it. There's no reason to worry about it since this was from several years ago and the current research I'm citing is completely different and its data stands on its own merit.

Quote:

By the way, you can't argue the issue SkinWalker, because it was the college he is employed at that suspended him.

I'm not interested in arguing the issue. Its irrelevant since it isn't related to the data I cited.

Actually in this case I can, because the reason I'm saying the study is biased and untrustworthy, is the exact same reason that he got suspended for. Furthermore if it had been at the university I'm at that Professor wouldn't have been suspended, he would have been fired. For all we know he just didn't get caught that time.

Perhaps you should take a philosophy 101 class.

Every single thing you assert is based off of what we like to call a "fallacy of logic." This one would fall between 'ad hominem' and 'poisioning the well.' Use your research skills to figure out what they are.

You know what is to say that he didn't? That fact that nobody has called him on it, and nobody is able to point out where he manipulated bad data and skewed the results in this study. If such bad science had taken place someone would assuredly step in and publish a paper about it since it would be a quick and easy way to gain some notoriety in the scientific community.

Because he hadn't been caught at it because that's what the peers want to believe. You always need to be skeptical of research that says someone is smarter than someone else based on ideology, because it is the same kind of research the Nazis did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

You're obviously just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the actual science that you cannot debate because you either

If you consider propaganda to be science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

A) Don't understand it
or
B) Are aware that you would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid.

I'm going with

C) You can't realize when something is propaganda.
or
D) You are aware that it nothing more than propaganda yet you cling to it because it supports your ideology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Not that it's relevant anyway, but what data was his in regards to? Please cite the research. If you can't, don't sweat it. There's no reason to worry about it since this was from several years ago and the current research I'm citing is completely different and its data stands on its own merit.

It had to do with another one group is smarter than another group study. So the data's merit is seriously lacking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

I'm not interested in arguing the issue. Its irrelevant since it isn't related to the data I cited.

Considering it was the same type of study, I think you know perfectly well that it is relevent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Perhaps you should take a philosophy 101 class.

Any other personal jabs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Every single thing you assert is based off of what we like to call a "fallacy of logic." This one would fall between 'ad hominem' and 'poisioning the well.' Use your research skills to figure out what they are.

There is also something known as research integrity and the first source I looked up the background on, has little to no integrity.

So you are trying to tell us that there is not one single researcher in the entirety of the world who is interested in refuting a correlation between lower IQ and religion?

Oh you mean like the one where a scientist at the Smithsonian Institute was discriminated against because he believed in God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

You always need to be skeptical of research period. That is how science works, don't accept anything without analysis.

Considering I do a lot of research, I already know that, and the fact that SkinWalker's source has gotten in trouble for skewing data, doesn't speak well of his source's credibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

Maybe you could finally take the time to demonstrate exactly how it is propaganda? Show us the flaw in the method? Find the bias in the sampling?

Why don't you look up on wikipedia the Nazi Party there is a subsection in that article dealing with how they utilized 'research' to prove their discriminatory attitudes as legitimate. Seriously, there are a few other historical examples that fit this too, none of which are something that speak highly of this kind of research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac7142

It's not a jab of any sort, you have a poor grasp of logic and taking a Philosophy class might help to remedy that since it's essentially proving things through logic and almost nothing else.

As one whom possesses a minor in History, I can say with relative certainty that those whom do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Quite frankly the research that SkinWalker is using looks rather similar to the kind of research that was seen out of Nazi Germany.

Oh you mean like the one where a scientist at the Smithsonian Institute was discriminated against because he believed in God?

I fail to see how that in any possible way relates to the point I was making.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Considering I do a lot of research, I already know that, and the fact that SkinWalker's source has gotten in trouble for skewing data, doesn't speak well of his source's credibility.

Yes, we heard you the first five thousand times, we realize that you don't believe his source is credible because of one unrelated instance in his past where he was reprimanded for poor investigative techniques on a different topic. What you have failed to do is point out how that relates to the research we are discussing. If he was already in trouble for poor research techniques then wouldn't it stand to reason all subsequent research would be scrutinized far more? And therefore any bias or data manipulation would have been found out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Why don't you look up on wikipedia the Nazi Party there is a subsection in that article dealing with how they utilized 'research' to prove their discriminatory attitudes as legitimate.

And why don't we just keep on discussing completely unrelated tangents. Or perhaps you could use more than circumstance and assumptions and actually empirically demonstrate how Nyborg's research is in any way the same pseudo science. Demonstrate the error in his methods. Explain the flaws in reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

As one whom possesses a minor in History, I can say with relative certainty that those whom do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As one who does not possess a minor in history I can also say that I too have heard that quote. Relevance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Quite frankly the research that SkinWalker is using looks rather similar to the kind of research that was seen out of Nazi Germany.

Really? Were the methods the same? Same sample size, same sampling method? Or is the only similarity the fact that they're centered around intelligence?

The plain fact is that Garfield has run up against a wall of rational discourse to which he cannot get around without resorting to red herrings and straw man arguments.

He will not attempt to deal with the data as presented since this is empirical, therefore he attacks the character of the researcher. This, my friends, is a dishonest tact. I suggest we not feed into Garfield's additional red herrings and straw man arguments, this is what he would like: discuss anything but the empirical data already presented.

Such is the future of the Republican party? Will conservatism continue to be faced with the influx of those with weak cognitive abilities while opposition parties see the inclusion of those with higher cognitive function?

It would seem this thread is demonstrative of that trend.

ET assertions appear to hold. That is to say, Garfield:

"A) [doesn]'t understand it
or
B) [is] aware that [he] would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid."

Such is the future of the Republican party? Will conservatism continue to be faced with the influx of those with weak cognitive abilities while opposition parties see the inclusion of those with higher cognitive function?

It would seem this thread is demonstrative of that trend.

I'd like to think that there are more reasonable conservatives less inclined to use fallacious reasoning than Garfield out there. It's just that none of them seem to frequent this board.

So yes, on topic, it seems the future of the Republican Party doesn't look too hot right now.

I actually have more optimism for the Republican party, which I tried (ineffectively perhaps) to convey in an earlier post. I think the "alleged base" is starting to become a thing of the past and modern, younger republicans are starting to see that there must be some balance between progressive posture and conservative desires.

In order to make the Republican party an appealing choice for the educated, they'll need to start embracing intelligent and rational positions and marginalizing the irrational and less intelligent.

Methodology is flawed in that it uses a sample size that was not equal. Nearly 100 to 1.*
They got a more accurate average for religious than athiest. That means it would trend toward the average of the US, which last I checked was right around 100. **

It fails to break it out by how religous they are, and whether they are fundamentalists.

Seems to me if you pick and choose where you get your data you can manipulate your data aquisition to skew your results.

Again, while I find it insulting that you keep making the claim that the religious are less intelligent, I do not judge the worth of a person by their IQ. Nor do I judge their worth by the level of education. I have a buddy who is an ASE Certified Master Mechanic. I don't look down my nose at him because he didn't attend college. And shame on you if you do. Which it certainly appears you do. You guys put so much emphasys on IQ and education.

*note: easy to understand as the relation of religious to athiest in the US is a similar number
**interesting to note that the average from the test is higher than the national average. could that indicate that those that took the ASVAB are smarter than the average person in the US?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Methodology is flawed in that it uses a sample size that was not equal. Nearly 100 to 1.*
They got a more accurate average for religious than athiest. That means it would trend toward the average of the US, which last I checked was right around 100. **

The issue with that is that the samples are not equal populations, so any adjustment in the populations would also have skewed results. Moreover, it would raise questions on separate methodology which would need to be applied to pick a smaller sample of the religious. Remember, n=10,650,267. There are a given population of religious and a given population of atheists.

Therefore the most accurate interpretation of the numbers would be to use actual n of both populations. Even still, 117, 681 is no small sample size!

Quote:

It fails to break it out by how religous they are, and whether they are fundamentalists.

My summaries fail at this, but both papers go into some detail with this regard. In fact, Nyborg conducts different statistical tests (12 I think) for various interpretations of religiosity.

Quote:

Seems to me if you pick and choose where you get your data you can manipulate your data aquisition to skew your results.

Which is why he goes to great pains to exhaust a dozen possible compilations, attempting to control for various things like income and degree of religiosity. The results of each are consistent with the syllogisms hypothesized and, to be fair, he did find that liberally religious people scored higher than dogmatically religious, but the non-religious trended higher still.

Quote:

Again, while I find it insulting that you keep making the claim that the religious are less intelligent, I do not judge the worth of a person by their IQ.

I'm not making an assertion so much as an observation. Those who do not consider themselves dogmatically religious or dogmatically conservative (i.e. wholesale buy-in to the more absurd fundamentals of conservative ideology), trend toward higher cognitive ability. Better thinking skills (rationalism, critical reasoning, skeptical processing, logical reasoning, etc.) cause help the individual make better decisions an align themselves better politically.

Whether or not you find data insulting or not is a choice you'll need to decision on your own. The data are empirical and it is reasonable to expect individuals of higher cognitive ability to engage in intelligent and reasoned discourse on topics they find controversial without choosing to be "insulted."

Quote:

Nor do I judge their worth by the level of education.

Level of education was not a primary factor. The samples used in the Nyborg data were adolescents of 12-17 years of age. They are obviously pre-collegiate. They potential of people with higher cognitive function to succeed in higher academics is greater, that's a given, but not a necessary component of either the hypotheses or the results.

Quote:

**interesting to note that the average from the test is higher than the national average. could that indicate that those that took the ASVAB are smarter than the average person in the US?

It could also be temporally significant or significance could be a result of the test instrumentation (i.e. less psychological pressure since the ASVAB doesn't affect one's ability to be accepted to college). The key point is a single instrument was consistently applied to the entire population of n, giving each sub-population a consistent instrument of measure.

SkinWalker your sources have no research integrity, and I believe you're aware of that fact. I'm finding your, Rogue Nine's, ET Warrior's, and EnderWiggin's attempt at defamation of charecter to be highly annoying.

The fact he picked and chose data invalidates the entire study, it flies in the face of research ethics and I believe you already know that as well.

So ignoring the fact that Nyborg compiled the data and you fallaciously dismiss it on the grounds that it is easier for you to erect a straw man regarding his past research, how then do you reconcile the fact that, among American adolescents, there is a negative correlation between ASVAB scores of intelligence (the very tests administered and trusted to provide intelligence quotients re-termed as GT scores by the military which then qualifies people for job positions) and their religiosity? The more religious someone is, the less they score on the ASVAB.

The study itself makes no assertion of why, but seeks only to demonstrate the correlation between cognitive function and what people are willing to accept with regard to beliefs.

Pentecostals, for instance, are among the more dogmatic of religious adherents and I don't think it would be a stretch or generalization to imagine that the vast and overwhelming majority of this denomination are conservative republicans.

Pentecostals, however, also subscribe to the most fantastic of beliefs -things that are completely without intellectual merit or expectation of being true by those who are among the population who have higher cognitive function. Things like snake-handling, speaking in tongues (glossolalia), young-earth creationism, etc.

The prediction of the study is that this group would have a lower IQ (lower cognitive function) than more liberal groups. I actually didn't look at the table in the study before choosing Pentecostal as an example, but it turned out that the prediction holds. Pentecostals scored an average of 101.89 as an IQ whereas atheists scored an average of 111.08.

Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

When comparing religious denominations, Nyborg rated (by using the ratings of previous authors/studies) denominations as either liberal or dogmatic, defining both thus:

The study itself makes no assertion of why, but seeks only to demonstrate the correlation between cognitive function and what people are willing to accept with regard to beliefs.

Pentecostals, for instance, are among the more dogmatic of religious adherents and I don't think it would be a stretch or generalization to imagine that the vast and overwhelming majority of this denomination are conservative republicans.

Pentecostals, however, also subscribe to the most fantastic of beliefs -things that are completely without intellectual merit or expectation of being true by those who are among the population who have higher cognitive function. Things like snake-handling, speaking in tongues (glossolalia), young-earth creationism, etc.

The prediction of the study is that this group would have a lower IQ (lower cognitive function) than more liberal groups. I actually didn't look at the table in the study before choosing Pentecostal as an example, but it turned out that the prediction holds. Pentecostals scored an average of 101.89 as an IQ whereas atheists scored an average of 111.08.

Well, I don't find this surprising in the least. Anyone willing to handle venomous snakes as a demonstration of their faith qualifies as incredibly stupid, or insane, or a mixture of both. Predictably, several have been bitten and a few have died due to this practice. What is the Pentecostal Church's explanation for this? That their faith wasn't strong enough? I think that my explanation is more likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

Ah-hah! This is the part you told me about, correct? Very enlightening. Could it be that atheists and agnostics are more dogmatic than Episcopalians, Anglicans and Jews?

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

Ah-hah! This is the part you told me about, correct? Very enlightening. Could it be that atheists and agnostics are more dogmatic than Episcopalians, Anglicans and Jews?

I could be! I've known some very dogmatic atheists in my time

I think, however, that it speaks more to the general trend of humans to need spiritual or mysterious explanations, regardless of cognitive function. My area of study in archaeology and anthropology includes ancient religion, cult rituals and belief and what can be inferred about this from the material record of a culture. I also try to compare and contrast ancient cultures with modern with regard to belief and cognition in order to develop good research questions and hypotheses.

So ignoring the fact that Nyborg compiled the data and you fallaciously dismiss it on the grounds that it is easier for you to erect a straw man regarding his past research, how then do you reconcile the fact that, among American adolescents, there is a negative correlation between ASVAB scores of intelligence (the very tests administered and trusted to provide intelligence quotients re-termed as GT scores by the military which then qualifies people for job positions) and their religiosity? The more religious someone is, the less they score on the ASVAB.

The fact he compiled the results throws the results into doubt because for all we know he deliberately selected the subjects in a manner to obtain the results he desired, just like he did for the study he was suspended over.

The fact is you can't selectively ignore the fact the person that compiled the data has an integrity problem. The fact the test is a legitimate one is irrelevent if the one conducting the test has a record of deliberately misrepresenting the results.

Fact is, I've seen a real-life examples of legitimate tests being used in a manner that throws its credibility into doubt.

I'm not going to selectively ignore the facts that your source has a credibility and ethics problem, when any ethical researcher would also toss this scientist's results out the nearest window.

In fact in Planning Educational Research, it talks about deliberate bias and distorting research data. I found it on pages 176-178.

for all we know he deliberately selected the subjects in a manner to obtain the results he desired,

Since you apparently just skimmed the lengthy post of Skinwalkers that outlined the study in question, I will quote the particularly pertinent part of it that you seem to be either unaware of or unable to comprehend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

The data, as we can see in the lengthy and detailed methods section of his paper, aren't from Nyborg's own survey questions, questionnaires, or subjective hypotheses. They are arrived at using existing test scores used by the Department of Defense

So I ask you, do you believe the Department of Defense has been cherry picking the students that they allow to take their tests in order to make it appear as though the dogmatically religious have statistically lower IQs? And if so, what would their motivation be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

The fact is you can't selectively ignore the fact the person that compiled the data has an integrity problem. The fact the test is a legitimate one is irrelevent if the one conducting the test has a record of deliberately misrepresenting the results.

Except he did not compile the data, merely analyzed it. He did not conduct any of the tests, he was completely uninvolved in the data collection process. The results exist as they exist, and you are 100% welcome to go through the data yourself and determine at what point in his analysis he is incorrect.

However, as has been pretty clearly demonstrated in this thread you are either unwilling or unable to do so (likely for fear of being unable to deny the empiric truths contained in said data), and will instead continue to declare that one past (unrelated) transgression of the researcher whose only involvement with the data was analysis completely nullifies all of it.

Since you apparently just skimmed the lengthy post of Skinwalkers that outlined the study in question, I will quote the particularly pertinent part of it that you seem to be either unaware of or unable to comprehend.

Seriously from what I've read on my own research, the research you and SkinWalker are using is tainted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

So I ask you, do you believe the Department of Defense has been cherry picking the students that they allow to take their tests in order to make it appear as though the dogmatically religious have statistically lower IQs? And if so, what would their motivation be?

Oh so it was about religious fundamentalists, not people that were merely religious and believed in God... Thanks for admitting that little tidbit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

Except he did not compile the data, merely analyzed it. He did not conduct any of the tests, he was completely uninvolved in the data collection process. The results exist as they exist, and you are 100% welcome to go through the data yourself and determine at what point in his analysis he is incorrect.

If he handled the data at all that includes analyzing it, the data is tainted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

However, as has been pretty clearly demonstrated in this thread you are either unwilling or unable to do so (likely for fear of being unable to deny the empiric truths contained in said data), and will instead continue to declare that one past (unrelated) transgression of the researcher whose only involvement with the data was analysis completely nullifies all of it.

Actually you just admitted that your side has been misrepresenting the results of the data and furthermore, the person doing the analyzation has gotten in trouble for cherry-picking the results in the past.

Seriously from what I've read on my own research, the research you and SkinWalker are using is tainted.

Oh yeah? What research has that been? Aside from your irrelevant issues with the researchers past as has been repeated ad nauseum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Oh so it was about religious fundamentalists, not people that were merely religious and believed in God... Thanks for admitting that little tidbit.

*sigh* no, it was about all different levels of religiosity, from atheism to fundamentally religious. You would know this if you actually read the study. (Or pretty much any of our posts...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

If he handled the data at all that includes analyzing it, the data is tainted.

So if there is ever data collected that proves the existence of your deity of choice and Nyborg looks at it it's suddenly tainted and should be thrown out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Actually you just admitted that your side has been misrepresenting the results of the data

Actually you just put words in my mouth. I made no such statements. Thanks for completely ignoring all of the points in my previous post though, I appreciate being proven correct when I make predictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

and [you] will instead continue to declare that one past (unrelated) transgression of the researcher whose only involvement with the data was analysis completely nullifies all of it.

Oh yeah? What research has that been? Aside from your irrelevant issues with the researchers past as has been repeated ad nauseum?

Actually that is relevent, whether or not you choose to admit it is your problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

*sigh* no, it was about all different levels of religiosity, from atheism to fundamentally religious. You would know this if you actually read the study.

Oh so let me get this straight it was a study geared to justify religious persecution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

So if there is ever data collected that proves the existence of your deity of choice and Nyborg looks at it it's suddenly tainted and should be thrown out?

Saying that people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God reeks with bias, as would a study that says people that are atheists aren't as intelligent as those that believe in God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

Actually you just put words in my mouth. I made no such statements. Thanks for completely ignoring all of the points in my previous post though, I appreciate being proven correct when I make predictions.

No, in my opinion, you're only saying that it isn't relevant because of the fact if you had to admit that that incident I'm referring to was relevent it would completely invalidate your evidence to justify your beliefs. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I was about the legitimacy of the study being questionable, and unlike you I would actually acknowledge that point.

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 03-01-2009 at 09:02 PM.
Reason: Changing choice of words

Saying that people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God reeks with bias, as would a study that says people that are atheists aren't as intelligent as those that believe in God.

Since you didn't bother reading his post or the study and have instead opted to make yourself look stupid, re-read this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinwalker

Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

How is closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly working out for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

No, I'm saying you're only saying that it isn't relevant because of the fact if you had to admit that that incident I'm referring to was relevent it would completely invalidate your evidence to justify your beliefs. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I was about the legitimacy of the study being questionable, and unlike you I would actually acknowledge that point.

I could also assume that from the mistakes Fox News may have done with a News story that all of their stories from that point on are invalid. I could assume that since one study managed to screw up, and every study ever made after that is also invalid.

The thing is, you have given good reason as to why it -may- be skewed, but you've yet to give proof that it has been. Give us something that says it has been. Give us outrage over a skewed fact. Give us something other than your own speculation and the speculation of the research you never did.

Not all of it, because it violated quite a few smell tests just based on SkinWalker's posts. I did some looking into the guy's background, and found that the man had been suspended for conducting a similar study only it involved genders if I remember correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

Since you didn't bother reading his post or the study and have instead opted to make yourself look stupid, re-read this:

I read part of it, and how it was presented so are you telling me that SkinWalker misrepresented the data? Any studies that have to do with intelligence of people based on race, gender, and/or religion in my book and based on history are usually subject to blatent bias. I'd say the same thing if it had said aetheists aren't as intelligent for not believing in God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

How is closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly working out for you?

Pot calling the kettle black there...

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

I could also assume that from the mistakes Fox News may have done with a News story that all of their stories from that point on are invalid. I could assume that since one study managed to screw up, and every study ever made after that is also invalid.

Making a mistake is not the same as deliberately distorting data, the person conducting the study was suspended for deliberately tampering with the data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by True_Avery

The thing is, you have given good reason as to why it -may- be skewed, but you've yet to give proof that it has been. Give us something that says it has been. Give us outrage over a skewed fact. Give us something other than your own speculation and the speculation of the research you never did.

Fact is I don't have to prove anything more than I have, the burden of proof is on the researcher in a research study, if they have compromised their credibility it throws other research of a similar nature into question. That's why getting accused of something like this is such a big deal.

That's also the reason why what someone has done in the past is important.

Indeed. And this is exactly what Skinwalker provided us with. I'm sure you've noticed that anyone here but you considers the research study to be empirically valid.
You do not. Please demonstrate why we should believe you. And do so by referring to the empirical data, not Nyborg's history.

So far, your treatment of this research study is akin to saying that Harry Potter sucks because Rowling has a history of writing bad books. Without actually having read Harry Potter.